The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on Sunday upheld a Massachusetts public middle school’s prohibition against one of its students from wearing a shirt with a message critical of transgender ideology. The appeals court found the prohibition to be consistent with the free speech protections of the US Constitution’s First Amendment under Tinker v. Des Moines.
At the heart of the controversy is John T. Nichols Middle School (NMS) and its dress code, which explicitly forbids “hate speech” and “imagery that target[s] groups based on […] gender identity.” The dress code also aims to prevent distractions and inhibit learning, stating, “clothing […] that causes distractions […] is not allowed.” More details about the school’s dress code can be found here.
On March 21, 2023, seventh grader Liam Morrison wore a shirt with the message “there are only two genders” to NMS. When the school asked Morrison’s father to provide more appropriate attire and he refused, the school barred Morrison from attending class unless he complied. Morrison attempted a workaround by wearing the same shirt with “censored” taped over part of the original message, but the school still insisted on its removal. This led Morrison, through his father, to sue NMS for the shirt bans, alleging that the dress code violates First Amendment protections due to its vagueness and overbreadth. Details about the trial can be accessed here.
NMS argued that the shirt ban was justified under Tinker by asserting that the shirt materially disrupted classwork and violated the rights of LGBT+ students to feel safe from harassment. The trial court agreed, ruling that Morrison’s claims were unlikely to succeed on the merits and relying on the “materially disrupts classwork” restriction as well as the lack of standing concerning “community standards.”
The appeals court upheld this decision, emphasizing that educators are better positioned than federal judges to decide what constitutes “an environment conducive to learning” in their schools. The full decision of the appellate court can be reviewed here.
For more information, the original article is available on JURIST.